Are we trapped inside of language?

You're not an engineer then?
When I'm working on a project most of my thinking is visual - and then placed directly onto paper (CAD screen) as a visual image.
A good engineering drawing requires very little language.

Click to expand...

That explains a lot . A friggen engineer . Ah bub I got some news for you . You can make the mechanics life hell. Have you ever heard of space to repair ? You better not be the guy that invented the Bosh dishwasher. If you are when I see you I am going to brake your little finger.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

You're not an engineer then?
When I'm working on a project most of my thinking is visual - and then placed directly onto paper (CAD screen) as a visual image.
A good engineering drawing requires very little language.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure making a picture of something is actual thought. Does a camera think when it photographs something?

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

I'm not sure making a picture of something is actual thought. Does a camera think when it photographs something?

Click to expand...

Have you ever tried to design something?
Something that will work?
An engineering drawing provides details on how to manufacture a real product.
Are you contending that designing, for example, a car requires no thought?
You ARE aware, I take it, of the slight difference between a camera (makes an image of something that already exists) and doing an engineering drawing (start with a blank sheet of paper, finish with a full set of instructions on how to make something that never existed before).

I dispute this claim to "inherent meaning".
And suggest that the reason you CAN use the word "rock" is because your (and my) understanding of the word comes

Click to expand...

Ok...so let me ask you this: where is the "place" that the word is supposed to be "holding"? Isn't it even then derived from language itself?

But let's say the word "rock" is merely an arbitrary placeholder. Take variables in equations for example. X and Y could be thought of as arbitrary placeholders for various values. IOW, their meaning is totally defined by the context of their usage in a formula. Is the word "rock" that way? No..Without even using the word "rock" in a sentence I can immediately grasp it's meaning (which comes from other words). I cannot do the same with a placeholder or variable. See? X..What the hell does it MEAN when it isn't placeholding?

Have you ever tried to design something?
Something that will work?
An engineering drawing provides details on how to manufacture a real product.
Are you contending that designing, for example, a car requires no thought?
You ARE aware, I take it, of the slight difference between a camera (makes an image of something that already exists) and doing an engineering drawing (start with a blank sheet of paper, finish with a full set of instructions on how to make something that never existed before).

Yes on your question for Me. The drawings are dependent on language. The design is dependent on language . Try designing something from nothing . Every thing you conceive comes from something else before you came up with it . You could not have come up with it independently ( Well maybe you are the exception like Me) . You Building on what has already been built .

Ok...so let me ask you this: where is the "place" that the word is supposed to be "holding"?

Click to expand...

The "place" is the actuality of a rock.

But let's say the word "rock" is merely an arbitrary placeholder. Take variables in equations for example. X and Y could be thought of as arbitrary placeholders for various values. IOW, their meaning is totally defined by the context of their usage in a formula. Is the word "rock" that way? No..Without even using the word "rock" in a sentence I can immediately grasp it's meaning (which comes from other words). I cannot do the same with a placeholder or variable. See? X..What the hell does it MEAN when it isn't placeholding?

Click to expand...

Would this possibly be because the word (placeholder) "rock" is used only in a particular way? And that use is (and has been) consistent throughout your life?
Don't you think that if James R's "phoonwaffle" had been the used instead of "rock" throughout history then you'd be arguing the exact same way about that word?
How can you think that "rock" has an inherent meaning when to any non-English speaker who's never learned English it's just another meaningless formation of letters?

Every thing you conceive comes from something else before you came up with it . You could not have come up with it independently ( Well maybe you are the exception like Me) . You Building on what has already been built .

Click to expand...

This is nothing to do with the point under contention.
And also specious.

Have you ever tried to design something?
Something that will work?
An engineering drawing provides details on how to manufacture a real product.
Are you contending that designing, for example, a car requires no thought?
You ARE aware, I take it, of the slight difference between a camera (makes an image of something that already exists) and doing an engineering drawing (start with a blank sheet of paper, finish with a full set of instructions on how to make something that never existed before).

Well, your certainly making a picture of an existing image in your head aren't you? No doubt there is a creative feedback loop in seeing your own drawing and imagining it more clearly, but ultimately aren't you fusing together into new combinations objects and materials you are already familiar with and have already linguistically categorized? Someone designs a new bridge for example. But this is from a rich background of what bridges are and how they are constructed. So what I'm saying is, even imagination doesn't commence in vaccuum--ex nihilo so to speak. We imagine OUT of a world that we have already defined and described and come to understand in terms of words.

Well, your certainly making a picture of an existing image in your head aren't you?

Click to expand...

No. I construct the image in my head.

No doubt there is a creative feedback loop in seeing your own drawing and imagining it more clearly, but ultimately aren't you fusing together into new combinations objects and materials you are already familiar with and have already linguistically categorized?

Someone designs a new bridge for example. But this is from a rich background of what bridges are and how they are constructed.

Click to expand...

And when someone designs a new product?

So what I'm saying is, even imagination doesn't commence in vaccuum--ex nihilo so to speak. We imagine OUT of a world that we have already defined and described and come to understand in terms of words.

Would this possibly be because the word (placeholder) "rock" is used only in a particular way? And that use is (and has been) consistent throughout your life?
Don't you think that if James R's "phoonwaffle" had been the used instead of "rock" throughout history then you'd be arguing the exact same way about that word?
How can you think that "rock" has an inherent meaning when to any non-English speaker who's never learned English it's just another meaningless formation of letters?

Click to expand...

But the word "rock" ISN'T just how I happen to use it in my life. It's a specific pre-defined word within a pre-existent framework called the english language. It even has a history on it's own of being etymologically derived from other languages and their roots. The fact that it is a sort of multilingual synthesis of meanings shows us that it's meaning is inherent and not JUST contextual. Furthermore, if it were merely a placeholder then it shouldn't matter if I used another placeholder in it's stead. Say "stone" for instance. "Rock" and "stone" refer to exactly the same objects. And yet there IS a difference in the two words' meanings or senses. Even as I use it "rock" already suggests roughness with "stone" suggests smoothness. Don't ask me why. It just does. And this poetic difference couldn't exist unless there was an inherent meaning to the word "rock".

But the word "rock" ISN'T just how I happen to use it in my life. It's a specific pre-defined word within a pre-existent framework called the english language. It even has a history on it's own of being etymologically derived from other languages and their roots.

Click to expand...

Er, yes. But YOUR use of rock is due to that. Learn context. Learn to read what I wrote.

Don't you think that if James R's "phoonwaffle" had been the used instead of "rock" throughout history then you'd be arguing the exact same way about that word?

Click to expand...

The fact that it is a sort of multilingual synthesis of meanings shows us that it's meaning is inherent and not JUST contextual.

Click to expand...

False. It simply means that our modern word is derived from the original arbitrary one used at the the time. It doesn't mean, or even imply, that there's an inherent meaning.

Furthermore, if it were merely a placeholder then it shouldn't matter if I used another placeholder in it's stead.

Click to expand...

Correct. Providing you get everyone brought up to speed on the new word. Unless there's a consensual understanding then you're doing nothing but talking gibberish.

Say "stone" for instance. "Rock" and "stone" refer to exactly the same objects. And yet there IS a difference in the two words' meanings or senses.

Click to expand...

On the one hand its use is identical and on the other it isn't? Run that by me again.

And this poetic difference couldn't exist unless there was an inherent meaning to the word "rock".

This is nothing to do with the point under contention.
And also specious.

Click to expand...

Yes it does . Just learning to speak traps you in the confines of language . Language is part of evolution and even your inventions are additions to the evolution of language by preconditions of existing language

Yes it does . Just learning to speak traps you in the confines of language . Language is part of evolution and even your inventions are additions to the evolution of language by preconditions of existing language

Click to expand...

Ah right. You can't answer any of my specific questions so you resort to generalisations and supposition.
Okay.

Ah right. You can't answer any of my specific questions so you resort to generalisations and supposition.
Okay.

Click to expand...

Am I to assume you don't use any kind of wire in your inventions . In the fastener business even a bolt can be construed as a wire. I think it is more of a thing that you take for granted. The work other people do so you can make your inventions come to reality . Words have meaning and the meaning of the words comes with history behind the word. Not only history but the items the words represent come from energy that had nothing to do with you